In lawsuit over protest buffer zone, argument is about law's clarity

At hearing of lawsuit against Burlington's protest buffer zone plaintiffs say law enacted before enforcement was defined

Jan. 29, 2013

Agnes Clift, Amy Cochran, Rita Mantone, and Jean Osborne, members of the plaintiff, stand in the lobby during a break in the trial. U.S. District Court Judge Sessions hears arguments in a suit brought against Burlington by six members of an anti-abortion group today. / MADDIE MCGARVEY/FREE PRESS

Written by

Free Press Staff Writer

Related Links

Burlington’s law against demonstrating within a 35-feet buffer zone at reproductive health facilities subverts free-speech rights, opponents of abortion testified Tuesday in Vermont U.S. District Court.

Two of six women who filed a lawsuit against Burlington also asserted that the ordinance, which took effect Aug. 15, insufficiently defines prohibited “demonstrating, congregating, picketing or patrolling” within the buffer.

The City Council passed the ordinance in response to complaints about anti-abortion protests and prayers at Planned Parenthood of New England on St. Paul Street.

Citing precedence in the U.S. Supreme Court, Burlington attorneys have said the law sufficiently balances First Amendment rights with established guidelines for patient privacy.

In today’s continuation of the case, Burlington’s chief attorney in the case, Pietro Lynn, will be calling witnesses to support that argument.

During Tuesday’s seven-hour hearing, voices critical of the city held sway.

“I think I know what Burlington wants, but the language in the ordinance is vague,” said plaintiff Agnes Clift, a South Burlington resident who regularly stands outside Planned Parenthood to pray and distribute leaflets.

Another plaintiff, Amy Cochran of Richford, said she still hasn’t heard definitely if silent, solitary prayer within the buffer zone violates the law.

The womens’ attorney, Michael DePrimo, said the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled against laws whose ambiguity might lead to “discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement.”

The willingness of the Burlington Police Department to discuss guidelines for enforcement in what has been called an ongoing “educational phase” indicates the ordinance needs refinement, DePrimo said.

“You can’t have a law that restricts public speech be a work-in progress,” he said.

Lynn countered that subjective perceptions of the ordinance should not be weighed in the case.

“The question the judge must ask is whether the ordinance is reasonably understandable,” Lynn said. “We believe it is.”

During his cross-examination of Clift and Cochran, Lynn focused on the extent to which the communication of political and religious views were compromised by the 35-feet buffer.

The women asserted that the nature of their mission — to pray for women who seek abortions, and to offer alternatives — could not take place with the buffer zone because such discussions require intimacy.

Cochran said some prayers, although offered to God, needed to be said in close proximity to those whose opinions might be swayed.

“The grace of God is directional,” Cochran said.

Would she risk a $50 fine to deliver the message at her preferred range of three feet?

“I’m still struggling with that,” she answered.

The six plaintiffs have requested an immediate, temporary suspension of the city ordinance; Burlington seeks to dismiss the suit entirely.